arm_get_deployment_promotion_log

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It indicates a read-only operation through 'GET' and 'Retrieves', and specifies the output type as 'plain-text'. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, authentication requirements, or any side effects beyond the obvious read nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence. It includes the endpoint path for clarity and states the purpose in a straightforward manner. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (a read-only GET request with two required path parameters and one optional header), the description is adequate but minimal. It states the return format as plain-text but does not explain what the log contains, error handling, or any prerequisites. There is no output schema, so the description should carry more weight in explaining the response, but it only offers a brief mention of 'plain-text'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with descriptions for label and iterationNumber. The description text does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it references the path parameters but does not elaborate on formats, constraints, or examples. The optional headers parameter is entirely absent from the description. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Retrieves the plain-text promotion log for a deployment iteration.' The verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'promotion log' are specific, and the endpoint path further clarifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like arm_get_deployment_components or arm_audit_get_logs by focusing on the promotion log.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or relationship to sibling tools. The user must infer usage solely from the tool name and endpoint.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.